Re: Foreign schools, local tuition

This week I am devoting this page to reactions I received from readers following my last week’s article. The divergent views reflect how important it is for us to discuss the funding of our universities for sustainable development.

I beg to disagree with the submissions made by the author, Suleiman A. Suleiman. The premise of the article “Foreign schools, local tuition” is erroneous and misleading. It is indeed capable of inciting Nigerians against the government, hence the need to correct the erroneous impressions inherent in the article.

The access to FOREX at official rates granted to Nigerian foreign students by the government for the purposes of payment of tuition fees abroad does not amount to a from the government. Based on section 10 of the Foreign Exchange Act, an eligible transaction for the purchase of foreign exchange includes any transaction adequately supported by appropriate documentation except where the transaction is prohibited by law. Government in its wisdom has considered the following transactions eligible for FOREX. These include, Personal Travel Allowance (PTA) pegged at US$5,000 per quarter, Basic Travel Allowance (BTA) at US$4,000 per quarter, tuition fees at a maximum of US$15,000 per session and payable directly to the school account, payments for medical treatments, SME transactions, etc.

I believe the government’s wisdom in this regard is in line with its economic and social policy direction. For example, sick Nigerian patients in need of treatment abroad should not be allowed to die prematurely here either due to the dearth of requisite medical facilities, expertise or FOREX restriction, if such patients could afford the expenses abroad. This does not mean the government is subsidising foreign medical care for nationals. This is without prejudice to the need to continue to modernise and improve the health sector. In the same vein, there is wisdom in allowing students with the required financial means to study abroad. It enables the country access to first class education and expertise, which may not be available in local institutions of learning. Also, SMEs are considered the bedrock of any developing economy. Hence, in its determination to encourage and support this sector, the government has considered the sector legible for FOREX at official rates.

Also, in most countries, there is no such thing as an official rate and a black-market rate. Hence, FOREX is accessed from the same source. However, in Nigeria, due to the looming economic crises, there are restrictions and sometimes rationing of FOREX due to demand and supply mismatch. And of course, the perennial pressure on the foreign exchange rate is attributable to the rapacious appetite for foreign products by Nigerians, and in recent times the unpatriotic attitude of Nigerians buying FOREX from the black market for speculative purposes. Hence government’s objective is to adopt a FOREX management strategy to ensure foreign exchange stability and curb inflationary pressure all targeted at protecting the economy.

Most worrisome is Suleiman’s arithmetic on his so-called subsidy for students abroad, which at best, misled the public. He submitted that the remittance of US$609m as foreign tuition fees by the CBN from January to August 2022, which amounted to N256bn at the official exchange rate of N434 to US $ 1, gave rise to what he termed a subsidy of NI82bn at the parallel market rate of N733 to US$1. Nothing can be farther from the truth!

Federal government through the Central Bank of Nigeria does not sell its dollars to raise Naira at the black market! It is, therefore, preposterous and awfully misleading to imagine that the US$609m disbursed as foreign student tuition fees would have yielded N446.6bn to the government when sold at the black market. Suleiman may also need to know that the Bureau Du Change and agents are allowed access to FOREX at the prevailing inter- bank forex rates but the parallel market rate volatility is attributable to the factors I mentioned earlier. It is clear to all that the CBN is not in the business of selling US$1 for N733. It does not happen!

The benefits of foreign education cannot be over-emphasised. It is recalled that Nigerians have been receiving foreign education from the pre-independence era and have continued to bring back home first class knowledge and expertise and by so doing, contributing their quota to national development. These scholars who trained and are training abroad at the pain and sweat of their sponsors have contributed to the large pool of Nigerian professionals in the diaspora making contributions to the country and their host countries. It is a thing of pride to celebrate many Nigerians in the diaspora who have distinguished themselves in diverse professions in the latest technology, robotics, medicine, neuroscience, aeronautics, etc. These feats were mostly achieved through access to foreign education.

It is no wonder that the government through the Nigeria in Diaspora Commission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seeks to harness their knowledge and expertise towards national development. This is without prejudice to the current state of tertiary education in Nigeria. There is a need for an all-encompassing stakeholders conference, including the National Assembly, the academia, the students’ union, PTA and the government, to critically examine all the issues bedeviling the sector, with a view to proffering enduring solutions.

Malik Ahmed, Public Affairs Analyst, Abuja (08189299100)

Mallam Suleiman, your ‘Foreign schools, local tuition’ is a very sensible and analytical write up, do save it for posterity. I pray and hope an advocacy group can/may cue into your three policy measures. Allah ya kara basira.

H. Bello, Kaduna (0802 734 6465)

What a thought-provoking article that says it all about the covert issues that are not known. Even Dr. Tope Fasua suggested that for FG to continue to fund our varsities is no longer sustainable. May Allah grant us the wisdom and the will to take correction.

Ismail Y. Kaduna (07069002910)

It is an ironic reality that the fear of incessant disruptive ASUU strikes forced many parents to send their children abroad for university education. The battle by the university lecturers for a better deal may be headed towards counter productivity as foreign universities are now smiling to the banks while our economic and educational fortunes nose-dived. What it means is that even the battle for better working conditions and infrastructure by the lecturers and non-teaching staff should be artfully handled moving forward without destroying what remain of the very institutions you are struggling to salvage. The battle between China and US is mainly about Science, Technology and Innovation and their multi sectoral application. Our quest for education is largely paper qualification oriented. Even if and when we get it right and re-rail our institutions to limit educational tourism, a paradigm shift towards a “hands on” approach is imperative for our nation to radically leap forward and join the league of global Technological Tigers and place us on the path of sustainable economic prosperity.

Garba Isa, Kano (08029169551)

P.S.

Perhaps Malik misunderstands the original article. A subsidy does not need to bear the name. The real value of the naira is how much it is sold and bought in the so-called parallel or black market. But if a government runs two exchange regimes and makes a list of items for which to allocate the cheaper “official” rates, then it is simply subsidising the cost of the naira for those items, regardless of whatever reasons. It does not need to bear the name. And the figures I used were not manufactured by me. They are figures released by the Central Bank of Nigeria and cited by a national newspaper. The difference between N446.7bn, the real value of $609.5m and the N265bn official value of $609.5m is N182bn. The resulting amount is definitely a subsidy, because, without the official exchange regime, everyone would pay the same N733 for $1, and not N434 per $1.

I argued for the need to remove this hidden form of subsidy, and call for foreign education tax and plough the savings and proceeds back into our own universities. It’s an argument for policy reform, not against foreign education or anyone per se, and I stand by it still. After all, Americans living and working in other countries still pay taxes to the U.S government. As for the intent to incite or mislead, I can only say that I am very confident that readers of this page are not the sort of people that can be misled by me or anyone else, and the idea itself is disrespectful of them.